Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this and that is that some states pay more than they get and some get more than they pay. Everything is pure conjecture. As many have said, on what are those monies spent. In New Mexico, most people work for the local, state, or federal government. They may have a higher per capita rate of government employees. Also, the states where the most revenues are collected are also high-income states, financial centers in the NE and Chicago, high-tech out west, Texas has had net job gains, so there is more income in those areas that can be taxed while stimulus and other government spending typically goes to poorer states at a higher per capita rate (DUH: you don't need to stimulate high-income areas). It has very little to do with liberal or Republican and almost everything to do with the economies of the individual states.

So much Debt in Puerto Rico...and its income per head at PPP has been already surpassed by most nations in Eastern Europe (Slovenaia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary) and this year it is forecasted Puerto Rico´s income per head will be surpassed by Russia, Argentina, Chile and Mexico.

So much debt has just created a parasite economy without resources while Puerto Rico should have take the example of Singapore and Hong Kong.

Will blue-staters that are also green in this chart see this and come around to the fact that the federal government is inefficient and join the chorus for decreased federal power and increased states' rights?

These are meaningless statistics. They say nothing about what is actually happening in each state. Regardless of how much federal money each state receives, , they are all "in the red" and cutting their budgets. The Limeys should understand that we have a federal, not unitary system of government which means that each state has it's own tax and budgetary system.

Sorry, I meant to say that military bases represent a conscious and DELIBERATE wealth transfer. So it very much belongs in this chart.

Contrarily, since a lot of retirees move to the sun (Florida anyone?), those states must be excused for high SS expenditure. People choose to move there when they stop paying high taxes and begin to enjoy benefits. This simple demographic effect has nothing to do with lax fiscal morals.

I think it is a little misleading that a corporation registered in Delaware has its taxes ascribed to Delaware even though its only 'operation' in that state is a Delaware lawyer. Same for NY.
I am not sure how the corporate tax bill could be reasonably allocated among the states. Or the firm could do a GE and not pay any corporate taxes.

Personally, I think it is disingenious to exclude such things as defence spending and its contractors. (Los Alamos et al.) Military bases are built in poor regions to boost local economies. As such they represent a conscious wealth transfer. Ergo, they belong in this calculation. This is born out in the acrimonious debates on defence cuts. The discussion is more about which communities will lose their base, than about what the armed forces need and what they could do without.

As a European I can't be sure, but there seems to be quite a correlation between red on this chart and red states electorally. More to the point, the tea-party seems to have its epicentre in America's financial black hole.
In fact the tea-partiers bite the hand that feeds, unless they are in the top 10 or top 20 percentile that are busier exploiting tax-loopholes than paying tax. I don't understand how it can be an electoral force to be reconed with, under the standard economic assumption that all people act rationally and to their own benefit.

Good point about Walmart. But I was also surprised the auto bailout and TARP didn't redden some of the Yankee states.

Then again Walmart may have consistently been yielding taxes for a good time horizon - 1990 to 2009 (and not use aggressive accounting so much to defray such inconveniences like other big companies supposedly have done).

The graph is of little value because it's impossible to disentangle the web of interdependence.

If I work in Arkansas and I put my money in a pension plan in NYC, the manager in NYC will pay taxes in NYC for the services he rendered to my money. Then it turns out he's a crook and the value of the fund collapses.

Or, NM appears to be on the dole - except that huge swaths of NM are toxic nuclear dumping grounds that the Fed forced upon them. Los Alamos is in NM because Delaware was too small to test nukes in.

The chart is averaging, implicitly and explicitly averaging through so many variables, is little more than cute a distraction.

It is disengenuous to try and compare federal disbursements with tax revenues. Most federal spending is non-discretionary, so a state may be a recipient of a lot of federal money, but it may have nothing to do with handouts or earmarks. New Mexico is a favorite whipping boy in this discussion, until you stop to realize that the state hosts three air force bases (Kirtland Air Force Base, Holloman Air Force Base, and Cannon Air Force Base); a testing range (White Sands Missile Range); and an army proving ground and maneuver range (Fort Bliss – McGregor Range). It is also the home of the technology labs of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories. As a result, the amount of federal dollars flowing to New Mexico is largely the result of the federal government deciding to place stuff there a long time ago. The same goes for Virginia and Maryland -- they host a lot of federal agencies and federal workers, because of their proximity to DC, and thus get a disproportionate amount of federal dollars compared to their tax base.

I am more curious to see a chart of DISCRETIONARY federal spending by state. This would show which states are shamelessly suckling on the federal teat.

It would be very interesting to see the chart for personal income tax (not including corporate taxes because most big corporations are based in or chartered in a few states). Now that could be compared to federal government spending on individuals -- SS, medicare, medicaid, tuition grants... (Not including procurement of fighter jets or services consumed by the government)